Introducing 

Prezi AI.

Your new presentation assistant.

Refine, enhance, and tailor your content, source relevant images, and edit visuals quicker than ever before.

Loading…
Transcript

Delwin Vriend was working as a Laboratory Coordinator in Alberta, when he was fired by his employers. The only reason he was given for his termination was that he had been revealed to be homosexual. Vriend went to the Alberta Human Rights Commission, for help with what he believed was an unjust termination of his contract. Sadly, because Alberta's Individual Rights Protection Act, Vriend could not be defended as sexual orientation was not listed as one of the things you could be discriminated against.

7(1) No employer or person acting on behalf of an employer shall

(a) refuse to employ or refuse to continue to employ any person,

or

(b) discriminate against any person with regard to employment or

any term or condition of employment,

because of the race, religious beliefs, colour, gender, physical disability,

mental disability, marital status, age, ancestry or place of origin of that person

or of any other person

  • Is it unconstitutional for the IRPA to not include sexual orientation?
  • Should homosexuals be protected from discrimination?
  • What other steps could an individual take if they believed they had been unjustly discriminated against?

Thank You For Reading This Presentation.

Final Thoughts and Questions

This case is considered one that changed Canada, a landmark case, for a reason. This case cemented homosexual rights as something ineffable and unchanging in Canadian law and society.

Some Final Things to Consider

  • When the Charter mentions "everyone", does this encapsulates everyone, or just a certain kind of people?
  • Should the Charter be changed to include any other kinds of people who may need to be protected?
  • What would be different if the Supreme Court had ruled against Vriend? Would Canada's attitude on homosexuals change? Or would there be anger towards the Supreme Court?

What Does This Case Mean for Canada?

When the Supreme Court of Canada makes a decision, it's reflective of the attitude of Canadians around that time. Because the Supreme Court ruled in favour of homosexual equality, that reflects upon Canadian values, this shows that Canadians around that time were ready to accept homosexuals.

Another things this court case does, is set a precedent for other court cases, since the Supreme Court made the point that gays are people too, that has to be respected in other similar court cases, ensuring that homosexuals everywhere are entitled to freedom and equality under the law.

Decisions that Have Been Made

  • Vriend went to the Attorney General of Alberta, who added sexual orientation to the IRPA
  • The Alberta Government went to the court of Appeal, where they had this change reversed
  • Finally, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled to keep sexual orientation in the Charter.

The Supreme Court of Canada

Of course, Mr. Vriend and Gay Rights activists in Alberta were not pleased with the change the Alberta Government made, so they decided to appeal to the highest court in the Country, The Supreme Court of Canada.

In a Majority vote, the Supreme Court decided that the IRPA was unconstitutional, and it was written that every Canadian deserved equality, as all people had an equal measure of worth. None should stand above others in the sense that they are protected while others are not.

From there on out, the IRPA included sexual orientation, and nothing anyone could do could change this, as the say of the Supreme Court of Canada is final

Questions

Before we continue, keep these questions in mind.

  • Why would the Alberta Government not want sexual orientation to be protected by the IRPA?
  • In what way does having sexual orientation included in the IRPA cause any negative side effects?

The Government of Alberta's Response

Alberta was not pleased when they had found out that changes had been made to the IRPA. They retaliated against these changes by going to the Alberta Court of Appeal, where two out of the three judges ruled that the IRPA was not against the Charter. This reversed the ruling of the lower court, and wiped the IRPA of it's mention of sexual orientation.

Questions

Before we continue, keep these questions in mind.

Introduction, and the First Change To The IRPA

Vriend went to the Attorney General of Alberta, Judge Russel, who decided that the IRPA was unconstitutional, and ordered the IRPA to be read as if it included sexual orientation in it's description. From here on out, if you were discriminated against because of your sexual orientation, then the Alberta Human Rights Commission could help you.

This is the part of the IRPA that prevented Vriend, and any other homosexual in Alberta from recieving government support

Vriend v. Alberta

A Presentation by Daniel Jeffery

Learn more about creating dynamic, engaging presentations with Prezi